Do You Agree With This Statement?

This assumes guilt without a trial. Can we assume guilt or must guilt be established by evidence?

I often question before bin Ladin was killed if the US actually had the evidence to obtain a conviction. He was indicted for conspiracy related to the 1998 African embassy attacks but was never indicted for the attacks of 9/11. Conspiracy is a hard thing to prove when the person is not actively involved in the actual criminal attack. Had we captured bin Ladin did the US government have the evidence that would have established that bin Ladin was actually involved in the planning of the 1998 African embassy attacks?

We have an active prosecution today of Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri that is going to be prosecuted for conspiracy related to the attack on the USS Cole in 2000. I find a serious problem already with the charges as they are identified as an act of terrorism but the USS Cole was not a civilian target, it was a military target. Terrorism from my definition relates to attacks on innocent civilian populations to influence political policies. That was not the case on the attack on the USS Cole because that was a direct attack on a US warship and not an attack on an innocent civilian population. Attacks on military objectives where innocent civilians are not involved does not qualify as an act of terrorism IMO. Others may disagree but the military is not an innocent victim. Attacks on military targets are authorized by the Geneva Conventions.

http://news.yahoo.com/uss-cole-bomb...JmNjg1BHBzdGNhdAN1cwRwdANzdG9yeXBhZ2U-;_ylv=3

We can also question what will happen if he isn't convicted. Evidence obtained was through the use of torture which is prohibited by both the US Constitution and international law. It is highly unreliable as a person will admit to literally anything under torture. While he might have political, religious or personal beliefs that we would object to we have never believed in incarerating individuals based upon their beliefs. We incarcerate individuals based upon actions which violate the Rights of others and not merely because they believe something we disagree with.

There are about 50 or more individuals that are incarcerated at GITMO today where there is no evidence that they committed any crime. They are being held solely because of their political, religious or personal beliefs. As far as we know they are innocent of any criminal act that would justify their incarceration and their incarceration violates "due process of the law" and the US Constitution. Why are they still incarcerated if we have no evidence that they committed any criminal act?

 

If we read the Declaration of Independence it specficially establishes that the protection of the "unalienable Rights" of the People is the primary role and justification of government. It mentions nothing related to revenge. It is the protection of the Rights of the People which is the reason for government to exist.

Of note if "revenge" was a valid argument then it would be legal for individuals to seek revenge against those that have harmed them. We do not allow that. If an individual cannot seek revenge under the law then the People cannot delegate the role of revenge to the government. We cannot delegate a power that we do not have as an individual. We do have a Right to defend ourselves against the wrongful actions of others which provides the foundation for incarceration of an individual. We do not have a Right of Revenge.

 

Yes I agree with it, and I'll tell ya why: A government that would be so cavalier about locking up an innocent man poses a bigger threat than the ten guilty men.
/Good question, Mak.

 

The former USSR and Nazi Germany were perfect examples of the incarceration and State sponsored murder of innocent individuals.

Today the United States is incarcerating individuals where it has no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. It presents a threat to all of us when the government is allowed to incarcerate those where there is no evidence to support a conviction of a criminal act which establishes an actual threat to others. We are allowing tyranny by our government which is a far greater threat to the People than anything that an individual could do.

 

Every time we drop a bomb on an enemy, we kill or injure a lot of folk who might not have done anything wrong. That is called war. If, after efforts to the contrary, one does imprison an innocent man in the process of imprisoning a monster, then we have done what needed doing. The wrongly imprisoned person still has a chance to get out...

As I noted, it depends on the crime and criminal being targeted. In the day to day administration of Justice, it is better to let the occasional scum go free than to put the innocent in prison. In the case of the worlds Bin Laden's, such niceties sometimes need be overruled.

There is no yes or no answer to your question.

 

A trial only applies when one can get ones hands on the perp...Filth like Bin Laden operating outside the USA do not get the benefits of our Constitution.

Today we took out more trash in Yemen...completely OK with me.

 

It does slow the recidivism rate of the fellow executed.

 

Did anyone other than me notice that when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan and asked the US to present evidence that bin Ladin was involved in a criminal act that would justify his extradition that the US did not provide that evidence? Many have claimed that bin Ladin committed criminal acts but when it came time for the US to provide evidence of the commission of criminal acts by bin Ladin it was either unable to do so or simply refused to provide that evidence. I find that highly interesting considering that we're now engaged in the longest war in US history in Afghanistan after the Taliban offered to extradite bin Ladin if evidence was provided that supported the extradition.

 

The question should be "Are you willing to give up your freedom and goto jail to keep 9 criminals in jail?"

 

On the contrary, I believe that MOST trials are fair.

The DofI isn't a legally binding document. It is a petition to King George III enumerating the reasons for wanting sovereignty.

Granted, "the right of revenge" isn't specifically codified in our laws, but it exists every time a jury declares a father, mother, etc., "not guilty" after they extract revenge from the killer/rapist of a family member.